|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2022 |
|
|
Extension of time refused where technical delay was unpleaded and good cause was not established in the affidavit.
Extension of time – requirement to show good cause; technical delay – must be pleaded and proved in affidavit; submissions are not evidence; res sub judice and stay – failure to timely raise risks; applicant must account for each day of delay.
|
13 September 2022 |
|
Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused for failure to account for each day of delay.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – application under s.11(1) AJA and s.95 CPC – discretion is judicial and governed by Lyamuya guidelines. Requirement to account for each day of delay – Bushiri principle that even a single day must be explained. Alleged counsel error or concession does not automatically constitute sufficient cause for extension absent proper accounting and diligence
|
13 September 2022 |
|
Application struck out because advocate-sworn affidavit lacked proof of authority, contained hearsay and a defective verification clause.
Civil Procedure – affidavits – advocate swearing affidavit for client – advocate may depose only to matters within personal knowledge; proof of authority and mode of obtaining court records required
Evidence – hearsay – information from court records must be shown how and when obtained to qualify as personal knowledge. Verification clause – must disclose sources of information and grounds of belief and distinguish knowledge from understanding
|
12 September 2022 |
|
Appellant failed to prove ownership; Tribunal correctly found respondent lawful owner and appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – ownership dispute over registered land; proof of title and burden of proof
Evidence – evaluation and weight of documents tendered after dispute; minor’s capacity to hold title. Personal names – effect of multiple names and registered Deed Poll on ownership claims. Civil procedure – Tribunal's factual findings upheld absent demonstrable error
|
9 September 2022 |
|
A revision application is incompetent where an appeal against the same tribunal decision is already pending in the same court.
Civil procedure – Revision v appeal – Principle against invoking revisional jurisdiction where an appeal on the same decision is pending ("riding two horses"); applies even to strangers/interested parties who were not parties in the trial tribunal; competence and abuse of process.
|
9 September 2022 |
|
The plaintiff's action based on an alleged oral land sale was time‑barred and dismissed with costs.
Limitation of actions – Cause of action arising in 2012 – Suit founded on contract – Paragraph 7, First Schedule, Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 – Time‑barred; Power of Attorney executed abroad (territorial limitation); Joinder/privity of contract argued.
|
9 September 2022 |
|
Without documentary proof of a gift, the 1st respondent could not pass good title to the 2nd respondent.
Land law – transfer by gift – requirement of Deed of Gift or documentary proof to pass title. Property transfer – nemo dat quod non habet: one without legal title cannot pass good title to another. Evidentiary requirement – absence of written sale agreement or title documents renders purported sale null. Appellate review – first appellate court entitled to re-evaluate evidence and reach its own conclusion
|
9 September 2022 |
|
Alleged illegality (non-summons/denial of hearing) can justify extension of time to apply to set aside an ex parte judgment.
Civil procedure – extension of time – discretion to be exercised judicially – applicant must show good cause
Illegality – alleged denial of right to be heard / non-summons – may constitute sufficient cause for extension. Ex parte judgments – requirement to inform absent party when judgment is delivered; right to be heard. Limitation law – section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – principles in Lyamuya and Valambhia applied
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Technical defects and counsel’s mistakes can justify extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal if the applicant shows diligence.
Appellate jurisdiction — extension of time under section 11(1) AJA — sufficient/good cause — technical defects and counsel’s errors as grounds for enlargement of time — duty to account for delay and demonstrate diligence — authorities: Fortunatus Masha and subsequent cases.
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Unexplained delay and non-apparent illegality do not justify extension of time for revision.
Land law – extension of time to apply for revision – applicant must adequately explain delay; allegations of illegality must appear on the face of the record to justify extension; assessors’ opinions – requirement and effect when on record; combined applications – permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Delay in obtaining certified copies and verified illness can constitute good cause for extension of time to appeal.
Land law — Extension of time — delay in obtaining certified copies of proceedings, judgment and decree; illness as sufficient cause — factors for granting extension (account for each day, promptness, diligence, prejudice, arguable point of law).
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Delay in obtaining certified copies and medical incapacity justified a 14-day extension to file an appeal.
Land law – Extension of time under s.41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – Delay in supply of certified copies of proceedings as good cause – Sickness (outpatient) with medical evidence can constitute good cause – Applicant must account for period of delay and show diligence.
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Preliminary objection on limitation overruled where disputed factual question of when cause of action arose must be determined on evidence.
Land — Limitation — Suit alleged time‑barred — Preliminary objection inappropriate where date of cause of action is disputed fact requiring evidence — Preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law.
|
8 September 2022 |
|
An applicant's previously unsuccessful extension application bars refiling; the present extension application was dismissed as res judicata.
Land Disputes Courts Act s.41(2) – application for extension of time – whether re-filing barred by prior unsuccessful application. Res judicata – prior decision on merits between same parties and same subject matter precludes re-litigation. Distinction between striking out and dismissal – finality and consequent remedies
|
8 September 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed as time-barred because electronic filing was incomplete until fees were paid after the 30‑day limit.
Land procedure – leave to appeal – Court of Appeal Rules r.45(a) – 30-day time limit – electronic filing – filing completed upon payment of filing fees – delay unexcused – overriding objective cannot override mandatory procedural time limits – preliminary objection sustained; application dismissed with costs.
|
7 September 2022 |
|
Consolidation of two land suits without parties’ consent denied the appellant a fair hearing; retrial ordered.
Land law – procedure – consolidation of suits – requirement to obtain parties' consent or invite submissions on consolidation; consolidation without consent vitiates judgment; fair hearing – right to cross-examine; procedural irregularities that go to the root of proceedings warrant quashing and retrial; trial de novo ordered.
|
7 September 2022 |
|
Court ordered conditional detention of judgment debtor for failure to pay a decretal sum; appeal does not automatically stay execution.
Civil procedure – Execution of money decree – Arrest and detention of judgment debtor (Order XXI Rules 28, 35, 38, 39). Appeal and execution – Notice or appeal does not automatically stay execution; application for stay required (Court of Appeal Rules Rule 11(3),(4)). Credibility of affidavits – unsubstantiated affidavits cannot defeat execution
Remedy – conditional imprisonment unless decretal sum paid within specified time
|
6 September 2022 |
|
Husband’s sale of matrimonial home without wife's consent is void; purchaser entitled to refund, not title.
Land law; matrimonial property — acquisition and proof of ownership; Law of Marriage Act s.59(1) — alienation of matrimonial home requires spousal consent; sale without consent is void ab initio; bona fide purchaser and restitution (refund of purchase price and renovation costs).
|
6 September 2022 |
|
A defendant may obtain leave to serve a third‑party notice for indemnity where sufficient facts show third‑party involvement in the disputed land.
Civil Procedure – Third‑party notice (Order 1 Rule 14) – Leave to join third parties for indemnity or contribution – Defendant’s remedy – Requirement to plead sufficient facts enabling third party to prepare defence.
|
5 September 2022 |
|
Appeal struck out for incompetence because appellant sued personally instead of as administrator of the deceased estate.
Civil procedure – locus standi – capacity to sue – representative capacity where land forms part of deceased estate – necessity to plead and attach letters of administration. Parties are bound by their pleadings – inconsistency in capacity fatal. Preliminary objection at appellate stage – pure point of law determinable from record; no further evidence required
|
5 September 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed: issues either not raised below or not warranting Court of Appeal intervention.
Leave to appeal – discretionary and not automatic – grantable where appeal raises issues of general importance, novel point of law, or arguable appeal; appeals cannot raise new issues not decided in lower courts; whether appellate court may adjudicate issues not recorded by trial tribunal; bank debtor’s right to know amount claimed.
|
5 September 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where applicant failed to show arguable, novel or sufficiently important issues meriting Court of Appeal guidance.
Leave to appeal — discretionary remedy — criteria for grant: issues of general importance, novel point of law, prima facie/arguable appeal, not frivolous or vexatious — limitation (time-bar) alone not sufficient to justify leave — section 47(2) Land Disputes Courts Act.
|
5 September 2022 |
|
Time to appeal runs from date certified copies are ready; the appeal was filed within the 60-day period and is not time-barred.
Land law – Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal – Computation of limitation period – Section 38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act (60 days) – Section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act excludes time for obtaining certified copies – time runs from date copies certified ready.
|
2 September 2022 |
|
District Tribunal's judgment quashed for lacking points for determination and reasons; file remitted for proper judgment.
Land disputes – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction and pecuniary limits – Coram/quorum requirements – Locus in quo site visit (not mandatory) – Requirements for judgment: points for determination and reasons per Regulation 20(1) District Land and Housing Tribunal Regulations and Order XX CPC – Defective judgment; quash and remit.
|
2 September 2022 |
|
Alleged illegality on the face of the tribunal record justified extension of time to file a revision application.
Extension of time – good cause – illegality on the face of the record; District Land and Housing Tribunal jurisdiction; revision procedure; Principal Secretary v Valambhia; Lyamuya Construction.
|
1 September 2022 |
|
Court allowed appeal: reallocation without due procedure was unlawful, and initial occupant’s title declared valid.
Land law – allocation and reallocation of village land – reallocation invalid where land already in possession/development without following procedure; Civil procedure – jurisdiction – defects in verification and non-tendering of power of attorney curable; pleadings – amendment and late filing of WSD to amended plaint within tribunal discretion; Evidence – burden to prove abandonment; tribunal’s failure to consider defense evidence.
|
1 September 2022 |
|
Withdrawal of an application allowed (wrong provision cited), leave to refile refused, each party to bear own costs.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of applications – Order XXIII applicable to suits not applications; proper provision section 95; discretion to allow withdrawal if uncontested; leave to refile refused where related matters already determined; costs — court may order each party to bear own costs to avoid aggravating family disputes.
|
1 September 2022 |